Abracadabra Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 US House votes for Iraq deadline The House of Representatives has voted in favour of ordering President George W Bush to pull US troops out of Iraq. The bill links $124bn (£62bn) funding for the war to a 31 August 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of all US combat troops. It was passed by 218 votes to 212 by the Democratic-controlled House. Correspondents say it is the boldest challenge yet to Mr Bush's strategy. The president has made clear he will veto the bill. The White House says legislators should allow more time for his new strategy - which includes sending 28,000 extra troops to Iraq - to work. 'High stakes' "The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," House leader Nancy Pelosi said. "The American people see the reality of war. The president does not." However some Democratic representatives voted against the bill, because they said it would not put an immediate end to the war. Most Republicans opposed the legislation, which they said would represent an admission of failure in Iraq. "The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," Republican Roy Blunt said. source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Issac Brock Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 The House of Representatives has voted in favour of ordering President George W Bush to pull US troops out of Iraq. The president has made clear he will veto the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abracadabra Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 how pig-headed and stubborn can one person be? if i was standing in a room full of people telling me i was doing the wrong thing i'd be inclined to think that maybe they're right and i'm wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Smite Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I like how Bush said that this was all "political theater." Such an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Issac Brock Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 how pig-headed and stubborn can one person be? if i was standing in a room full of people telling me i was doing the wrong thing i'd be inclined to think that maybe they're right and i'm wrong Especially if each of those people were smarter and more qualified to run the country than I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 the war was never meant to bring democracy. the sectarian violence that is going on now was part of the plan. does no one get that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 the war was never meant to bring democracy. the sectarian violence that is going on now was part of the plan. does no one get that? No one with the habitual need to gravitate to sensationalism and conspiracies gets that. Let's accept the fact that Bush isn't God and every world event isn't under his total control. He and his advisors didn't anticipate such a long, drawn-out insurgency nor a long drawn-out civil war. His plan is not to incite a civil war -- a civil war as you can see only hurts Bush's approval ratings and the chances for the Republican party staying in power in both Congress and the White House. Bush would've loved nothing more than for a quick and speedy successful democracy with little to no insurgency or any other sort of social upheaval in their way. It was Al Qaeda in Iraq's goal to instigate/incite a civil war from early on, which they publicly stated in 2003 around the time they bombed the UN Headquarters (twice) in Baghdad. If Iraq wasn't a quagmire, and the Iraqi people simply accepted their new form of government harmoniously, and there was no inpouring of foreign fighters, Bush would then move on to his other targets -- either Iran, North Korea, or Syria for a third "regime change," and probably with the overwhelming approval of the U.S. public since the first two were seamlessly "successful." Because of the situation Iraq, Bush has to play the diplomacy cards on Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Again, in no way does sectarian violence benefit Bush (or anyone, except for Islamic extremists that want anything but a democracy), but please, I'm curious to know why you think it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 the sectarian violence helps kill off the men who are willing to fight against an ocupating empire(first you carry out false flag attacks so it looks like the shia/sunni attacked the sunni/shia),so it kinda does the work for the new world order by lowering the number of iraqis with balls,but sometimes no brains,which leads to fight one another. but oh wait....if u think it can be that bad,just call it a conspiracy,if that makes u feel safer. after all it is a conspiracy,if u know what that word means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 the sectarian violence helps kill off the men who are willing to fight against an ocupating empire Yes, but the majority of the people being killed in the sectarian violence are not insurgents. Most that have died are Shia at the hands of Sunni. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 juan, perhaps you have a link to give theo for the early 2001 meeting in beaver creek or beaver falls (can't recall which) that cheney attended where he gave the outline for the plan to invade iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Yes, but the majority of the people being killed in the sectarian violence are not insurgents. Most that have died are Shia at the hands of Sunni. one day you are going to see the light, theo. our entire country is going to see it and when it hits us, pray that we don't all go blind. i want you to watch something. not for the fact that alex jones is in it, but greg palast is discussing his book that covers these very issues. http://btjunkie.org/torrent?do=stat&id=32801c46d387be157e07c5d806df50452cc44c64b16f if you can, pick up that book or torrent search the audio book "armed madhouse" after you watch it, discuss it with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 theo: keywords "American Enterprise Institute" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Amed Chalabi: Conning the Neocons Chalabi gets the most credit for selling us the Iraq war. He sold fabricated WMD stories to CBS 60 Minutes, The New York Times, the Associated Press, all the neocons, the White House, and many in Congress. But the pinnacle of his success was getting his fake bio-weapons stories [Winnebagoes of Death] into the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate used by Congress to vote on the war, and into Powell’s speech to the UN. Later after, we installed him in the new Iraq government he was found passing top secret information to the Iranians. Amad Chalabi has been with the neocons since 1985. He contributed the most spectacular misinformation to Bush's 2002 State of the Union message, and Powell's speech to the U.N., and the media. Eventually the U.S. stopped paying him when they discovered him spying for Iran. • 1985. Introduced by Perle to Wolfowitz in 1985. • 1992. First chairman of INC, an Iraqi opposition umbrella group. • 1995. Organized an attempted coup against Saddam. Found out by Saddam before it was launched, the CIA refused military backing, but Chalabi went ahead, losing 100s of INC soldiers. (Washington Post) • 1998. Helped push the Iraq Liberation Act through Congress. It earmarked $97 million to support Iraqi opposition groups, virtually all of which was funneled through the INC. • 1999. Wurmser says: Chalabi is one of "two mentors who guided my understanding of the Middle East." • 2001. PNAC's "Director of the Middle East Initiative" writes: "Chalabi may be ideal for the task [leading oposition and Iraq]. ... Chalabi also established his own intelligence service, which dwarfed the reach and understanding of the CIA's clandestine service." • 2002, Jan. Kristol and Kagan write: "The United States should support Ahmad Chalabi." • 2002, Mar. 3. Chalabi's defector, an Iraqi "major," tells Leslie Stahl of CBS's 60 Minutes about mobile biological-weapons labs in seven trucks that he personally purchased. • 2002, Oct. 1. National Intelligence Estimate delivered to Congress (in preparation for the vote on the Iraq War Resolution, Oct. 11) includes fabricated information on bio-weapons from Chalabi's "major." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Chalabi and the INC organized a coup attempt in 1995 from northern Iraq, backed by the CIA. But shortly before it was launched, the CIA learned (1) that the attempt had been found out by Saddam, and (2) that Chalabi had forged a document from the U.S. asking him to get help from the Iranian government, and had shown this to Iran. The CIA then told him it would not provide support. He went ahead anyway with disasterous results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I don't have an account to see that video. All of that other stuff you posted didn't answer the simple question I asked you in regards to your statement: Why do you feel the current sectarian violence was "part of Bush's plan" and how does it benefit Bush's position? His approval ratings are in the toilet and the Republican party has received a beating as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I don't have an account to see that video. All of that other stuff you posted didn't answer the simple question I asked you in regards to your statement: Why do you feel the current sectarian violence was "part of Bush's plan" and how does it benefit Bush's position? His approval ratings are in the toilet and the Republican party has received a beating as a result. ratings don't matter to these people. it's not about that. it's about producing less oil. the top 5 iol companies pulled in $113 billion IN 2005, compared to the $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. i've told you guys this over and over. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-1002.htm http://www.correntewire.com/henry_kissinger_iraq_really_is_all_about_the_oil_and_well_be_there_for_a_long_long_time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 greg palast in studio with alex jones http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5088683890635214113&q=greg+palast this is what i was trying to get you to download theo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 greg palast in studio with alex jones http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5088683890635214113&q=greg+palast this is what i was trying to get you to download theo that thing is an hour long. i watched the first 6 minutes. it's nothing more than a book promotion. and, so far his thesis seems to surround the statement/claim that the bush administration (with the help of "big oil" companies), drew up a plan for an iraq invasion. although i was not aware of "big oil" being involved, i was aware that the bush administration wanted to invade iraq prior to september 11th, in early 2001. so there's nothing really new. if there is anything in that video that relates to the question i asked you, just tell me the time mark and i'll fastforward to that point. if not, i'll just take it as you sidestepping the question again. you made a strong statement, so be a man and back it up. if anything, big oil would want a stable friendly democracy with no sectarian violence in iraq, just as these same companies (and the US governement) have with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and other "friendly" and "stable" oil exporters to the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushawn wuan Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 what the fuck happened with osama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 theo: right above that video link, in my post directly following yours. read those two articles. rushawn: that asset is no longer needed. check into his "operation islamic liberation", though. sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftwinghack Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 bad idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabloid- Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 1) political capitol that is created with a war. People are less likely to try something new when they are scared. No war time president has ever lost his seat during a war. ---- when political capitol is achieved you can get everything passed you want. Bush actually told his biographer this in 1999 ( Mickey Hurscawitz ** spelling). http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm Bush managed to stack the supreme court w/ ideologues. That's the #1 benefit of this war to the corporatists agenda. 2) With peak oil rapidly approaching we needed a strong presence in the middle east. http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm 3) Neo-Cons needed their own Japan/ Germany to disprove the regulated capitalism. http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/17.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRUM Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 How come someone will assinate kennedy and not this faggot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 How come someone will assinate kennedy and not this faggot? assassination is wrong. no one wants him killed by the hand of a vigilante. what we want is trials to expose the injustice, the lies, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabloid- Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Trials and prison time. That would be great. Never going to happen, but one can dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Trials and prison time. That would be great. Never going to happen, but one can dream. i didn't say prison time...i think it's about time we find an old oak tree....but after the trials. do 'em up like we did treasonous leaders from long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Trials and prison time. That would be great. Never going to happen, but one can dream. thats why bad things still happen,because humans think it wont work therefore should just "live your life" and forget about it...we need to at least TRY. i know we can see bush and his friends convicted for what they did,but we need to be more positive about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sars.Saw.Chicago Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 did yall hear about the gangs in iraq? their fighting for territory....but they've taken it to a whole different level. their blowing shit up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.